Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Eastern Front Mod (Read-Only) => Suggestions => Red Army Suggestions => Topic started by: Otto Halfhand on April 05, 2012, 08:36:24 PM
-
I think Shared Veterancy for Conscripts, (and Conscripts only), should be tried out. It may well be unbalanced; in which case it could be removed. It seems to me that when 2-3 conscripts are needed to flank an MG, 1-2 are going to be mauled and retreat back to base. Early in the game why even try? two thirds of the force will be out of commission for an extended period.
-
It may well be unbalanced; in which case it could be removed.
or not added at all.
If rifles flank an MG some will die too. If you retreat them early enough you wont loose a squad. Flanking an MG an loosing no soldier doesnt happen normally.
-
You are always going to lose soldiers when launching a large MG flank. After all one squad must absorb fire.
-
Casualties are inevitable. Shouldn't the survivors be learning combat and survival skills in the process. 7/14?/24 EXP is extremely hard to obtain whthe time 75% of time you are in retreat and reorganization. I am not suggesting this idea will be balanced. It may well not be. I think the experiment should be made.
Gameplay aside I find the notion that players think of conscripts as mere cannon fodder, dishonors the memory of all conscripted soldiers in all wars that have been forced to die for their countries, and is REPULSIVE.
-
Originally Conscripts weren't even supposed to get vet sooooo yeah :P IMO they are okay for know (although I would like my 8 man squads back). And their vet requirements discourage players from using them as main line infantry. Rather Strelky should be used. If they got vet so fast, who would bother getting any other infantry ???
Gameplay aside I find the notion that players think of conscripts as mere cannon fodder, dishonors the memory of all conscripted soldiers in all wars that have been forced to die for their countries, and is REPULSIVE.
I don't mean to sound rude but this is a simple game, not a history lesson or a memorial service. We are all on COH to have fun, not honor people. And of course, its for balance.
-
Even with no shared vet and only 4 rifles, Cons is a very scary unit in swarming early and cannon fodder later. Shared vet will make them a nightmare no matter what >:(
About history, if you don't want them work as cannon fodder just don't do it. But in war, a soldier is cannon fodder in someways.
-
yes, it is repulsive. but thats what they were thought of as during the war. this was really the mentality of the soviet union. commisars for petes sake shot thier own troops on a regular basis just to show others to not run away from battle. to "flank" machine guns, soldiers actually linked arms and ran straight at them. so, yes it is dishonorable, but it wasn't invented by the EF team. dont get me wrong, i think its terrible, but it also reflects the ideals displayed during the war.
-
At Cold Harbor US Grant ordered his troops to attack a fortified positions. THe soldiers sewed name tags on the backs of their mates before the assault so their bodies could be ID'd. They were draftees. Its not on EF. But it wasn't just the Sovs.
-
fair enough. but it is still a game. if you still want the names changed, talk to the dev team.
-
I wish to restate the shared vet for conscripts argument. I think shared vet for conscripts is a good idea.
Strategic Argument:
- In a firefight 3:1 odds are optimal and 2:1 is generally acceptable odds for engagement. 1:1 is a crap shoot. Conscripts and VG are natural opponents.
- 3cons vs 2VG is a crap shoot.
- 2Cons vs 2VG both upgraded should yield an advantage to cons at mid range and advantage to VG at close range.
- 3cons vs 2 VG both upgraded, my money is on the cons.
- VG buy their vet while cons have to earn it. Vetted VG vs cons is not a contest. Shared vet for conscripts is balanced.
Tactical Argument:
- We are playing Rock<Paper<Scissors here.
- As a PE player I would engage cons or Strelky with GR43s. Gds with ST44s and Shock Gds with Falls.
- I would no more send cons against Falls then I would send an AC vs 2ATG. I am happy to use my conscripts as skirmishers and to draw fire and cap. I am unhappy to find no other combat role for them. Vet allows this to happen. Shared vet is better.
Logistical Argument:
I am a stomper. My opponents generate 25 to 50 % more MP than I do. To suggest Conscripts be penalized just so the player spend additional MP on Strelky to give them a place in the game is flawed. Having spent 1100 MP, (0 pop) on conscripts already. If I am going to double down why pay 1080mp, (24pop) for 4 squads of strelky when I get 3 squads of Gds at 1020MP (24pop)? If I really must invest in 24pop more I'll Spend it on 3-KV85s rather than Strelky, thank you very much.
Originally Conscripts weren't even supposed to get vet ... IMO they are okay for know (although I would like my 8 man squads back). And their vet requirements discourage players from using them as main line infantry. Rather Strelky should be used. If they got vet so fast, who would bother getting any other infantry ???
...And of course, its for balance.
Ah but conscripts do have Vet. They no longer have 8 man squads or Molotov's that work against vehicles, (my preference). Shared vet is only one idea of many ideas that have been tried with conscripts. For Balance? ::) It hasn't been tested. If its not balanced get rid of it. PvP rules. :)
-
IMO a conscript can beat a volks squad (w/o vet) and they cost alot less(although they won't be at them everytime). With MP40 the volks will probably win but thats a whole different story. Volks can act a main line infantry but Conscripts aren't supposed to be main line infantry later on. Strelky are. And they can buy RBS which negates Volks vet. Your argument is based off the idea that Conscripts are main line infantry, which they kind of aren't. "Good as cannon fodder" is their description.
You can't really compare conscripts, strelky, and guards as the same thing. Guards are sort of diverse + need a lot of tech upgrades to get them. And why are you getting 5 conscript squads ???. That is what the numbers say after all.
You realize that conscript vet isn't really anything to brag about. vet 1 makes them cost less, therefore they don't fight better. I forget what vet 2 does although it doesn't help fighting either IIRC. Vet gives then a 20% damage increase. So thats it :P. And you must remember that they are effected by CS vet which is a vital unit who should be getting the kills.
-
[/list]Logistical Argument:
I am a stomper. My opponents generate 25 to 50 % more MP than I do. To suggest Conscripts be penalized just so the player spend additional MP on Strelky to give them a place in the game is flawed. Having spent 1100 MP, (0 pop) on conscripts already. If I am going to double down why pay 1080mp, (24pop) for 4 squads of strelky when I get 3 squads of Gds at 1020MP (24pop)? If I really must invest in 24pop more I'll Spend it on 3-KV85s rather than Strelky, thank you very much.
You seriously want to change basic balance so you can easier beat a extreme AI enemy?
Well the answer will be simple: no!
Pls lock this.
-
@ Cat Fishy:
...Your argument is based off the idea that Conscripts are main line infantry, which they kind of aren't. "Good as cannon fodder" is their description.
You can't really compare conscripts, strelky, and guards as the same thing. ...And why are you getting 5 conscript squads ??? . That is what the numbers say after all.
You realize that conscript vet isn't really anything to brag about. vet 1 makes them cost less, therefore they don't fight better. I forget what vet 2 does although it doesn't help fighting either IIRC. Vet gives then a 20% damage increase. So thats it :P . And you must remember that they are effected by CS vet which is a vital unit who should be getting the kills.
You can obtain up to 5 conscript squads at zero burden to your pop cap and with zero MP maintenance burden. That means 5 extra squads on map and a higher MP gain rate. Conscripts are low grade infantry, Strelky are line infantry and Gds are elite infantry. My comparison of the three types is on a MP cost and pop basis only. 5 cons. 4 strelky and 3 Gds are comparable only in MP costs. That is what the numbers say. I seldom get more than 4 conscripts, but will always get the fifth if my MP budget allows (no pop). Infantry is infantry and Gds are Gds. If I can get by with low grade infantry, skip the intermediate step and get elite infantry early it is to my advantage. The premise is exactly the same as the Wher T1/T3 /Storms Strat.
Yes conscript vet isn't that great, CS vet helps it. But I don't choose who gets credit for the kill. Sometimes my conscripts vet before the CS, when engaged in the same skirmish. One thing we can be certain of conscripts will die like flies. I am lobbying to get a little more value from conscripts.
@Killar: I bear you no ill will but please don't be a horses ass. I did not suggest changing the balance to suit the AI. Logistical Argument: ...
I am a stomper. ...Shared vet is only one idea of many ideas that have been tried with conscripts. For Balance? ::) It hasn't been tested. If its not balanced get rid of it. PvP rules. :)
Your final comment reeks of Star Chamber censorship. :(
I reiterate. I bear you no ill will.
-
Shared vet promotes blobbing, which is bad for gameplay and not at all how cons should be used. Midgame, Strelky should be pushing up the line while conscripts try to find a way in to flank and let loose molos on infantry in cover and MGs. Then the CS and 2 strelky can rock in from front on and demolish if your opponent still only has volks. Strelky completely outclass them.
You aren't considering that Sovs have the CS in early engagements which are much stronger than a volk squad.
CS + con > 2 volk
CS + 2con = 3 T1
CS + 3con < 4 T1
CS + 3con + molos/fast strelky/4th con > 4T1
-
CS + 3con + molos/fast strelky/4th con > 4T1
I don't understand this line.
-
CS + 3con + molos/fast strelky/4th con > 4T1
I don't understand this line.
Means any combination of 3 conscripts and a CS with either another conscript, use of molotovs, or a fast strelky use will beat nearly any combination of 4 T1 units from wher if played right.
Conscripts gain little to no benefit with vet, the primary bonus is the reduced reinforce cost. So this is such a subtle argument.
As stated previously, shared vet is pretty silly and promotes blobs to be made (Look at PE and Brits.) These two factions pretty much rely on blobbing which is just poor game play.
I think your investment planning is a bit off anyway.
Case closed though, this shouldnt be added.
-
I think we have all had a chance to have our say on this suggestion. The developers can decide if they wish to consider shared vet for conscripts.
To summarize the state of Conscripts v1.6:
- No one is much impressed with the combat value of Conscript squads, but when fully upgraded they are comparable to their Wehr counterpart VG.
- For differing reasons nobody is overimpressed with v1.6 conscript vet. People are still not totally satisfied with conscript squads (8m Squads, molotovs, and shared vet issues were raised).
- It seems a consensus view that improving conscripts could decrease the use of Strelky in game. Perhaps the Strelky and Conscript squads need to be a little more differentiated.
Unless someone has objection, I think this thread can be locked.
-
I think we have all had a chance to have our say on this suggestion. The developers can decide if they wish to consider shared vet for conscripts.
Things like this sorta go through the balance team first, they consider whether to add that or not, though developers override these types of decisions when they believe it's a change for the better.
To summarize the state of Conscripts v1.6:
- No one is much impressed with the combat value of Conscript squads, but when fully upgraded they are comparable to their Wehr counterpart VG.
- For differing reasons nobody is overimpressed with v1.6 conscript vet. People are still not totally satisfied with conscript squads (8m Squads, molotovs, and shared vet issues were raised).
Aren't these the same complaint? Regardless Conscripts aren't MEANT to impress, they're a crappy entry level infantry that give you a struggle in the beginning of the game. If Guards or Strelky were avalible right off the bat it would be OP. Conscripts aren't meant to scale up:That's what strelky are for.
- It seems a consensus view that improving conscripts could decrease the use of Strelky in game. Perhaps the Strelky and Conscript squads need to be a little more differentiated.
They are completely different. Conscripts are underequipped and can not scale up on such a scale that strelky do with their RBS upgrades and abilities, and one is meant for mid game infantry combat and one is meant for early combat.
-
...
- No one is much impressed with the combat value of Conscript squads, but when fully upgraded they are comparable to their Wehr counterpart VG.
- For differing reasons nobody is overimpressed with v1.6 conscript vet. People are still not totally satisfied with conscript squads (8m Squads, molotovs, and shared vet issues were raised).
...
You must have talked with a lot peoples lol. I never heard someone complaining about Conscripts tbh. If you play them correct (use of cover and position), they are fine as they are. Note that Conscripts are not designed to be used as main Inf (cannon fodder). They just should be used as supporting-/capping unit.
If you play 5 conscripts with full rifles (urban doc), get molotovs and have an ZiS-heal-truck, they even can be used as solid main Inf, especially if they have Vet.
-
If you play 5 conscripts with full rifles (urban doc), get molotovs and have an ZiS-heal-truck, they even can be used as solid main Inf, especially if they have Vet.
Which is what makes Urban a very infantry oriented doctrine :)
-
but a shared vet is atm not open for discussion
sorry to say this Otto, but balance is fine as it is
and balance issues can only be found in pvp games
not in games vs comp because the comp cheats, is "stupid" and got more ress
and like the others already said conscripts were never designed to be main inf
the plan was, is and will probably ever be that main inf of soviets are strelky!
yes there are strats and ways to use cons as main inf or better use them longer in a game (eg urban doc with full rifles and 5 cons)
but even if this is possible its not the idea behind them
-
You must have talked with a lot peoples lol. I never heard someone complaining about Conscripts tbh. If you play them correct (use of cover and position), they are fine as they are. Note that Conscripts are not designed to be used as main Inf (cannon fodder). They just should be used as supporting-/capping unit.
The people I've talked to have all been in this thread. You'all represent the mainstream view for this sort of thing. I don't have a problem with this. I sought out your collective views. You'all have provided them. I accept your instincts and game knowledge as sound.
Things like this sorta go through the balance team first, they consider whether to add that or not, though developers override these types of decisions when they believe it's a change for the better.
I agree with you. I think you'alls view points are an important sounding board for the DevTeams consideration. And as you point out the DevTeam will decide about my suggestion, not you or I.
...and like the others already said conscripts were never designed to be main inf...the plan was, is and will probably ever be that main inf of soviets are strelky!...yes there are strats and ways to use cons as main inf or better use them longer in a game (eg urban doc with full rifles and 5 cons)
but even if this is possible its not the idea behind them
If you play 5 conscripts with full rifles (urban doc), get molotovs and have an ZiS-heal-truck, they even can be used as solid main Inf, especially if they have Vet.
Which is what makes Urban a very infantry oriented doctrine :)
I'm with Cranial and donthateme on this one Spike.
Any way: "The Opera ain't over until the Fat Lady Sings". :)
-
The Thread Creator has requested this thread to be closed, and hence it will be.